Weatherford, Texas clash

There was some ‘violence’, as the media called it, at a protest in Weatherford, Texas over the past weekend. There was a group of citizens who were there to try to protect yet another endangered Confederate monument, when antifas, apparently from Dallas-Fort Worth, showed up in support of BLM. Unsurprisingly disagreements led to scuffles and clashes between the two groups.

The mostly-young antifas carried signs describing those who favored keeping the monument as being ‘traitors’. It seems almost humorous for antifas to call the people of Weatherford who were there as traitors; just what are they loyal to? Certainly not the country of their birth, and most certainly not their own kindred.

I mean, do they even know what the term ‘traitor’ means? Lately it’s “in” to call Confederates and their descendants ”traitors.” Quite the contrary; they were loyal to the death to their states, their Christian faith, their leaders (mostly good men, no matter what the ignorant say) and above all, loyal to their folk, their kin, their hearths and their homes.

What are antifas ‘loyal’ to? Anything at all? What do they believe in? Destruction and malice? Or are they ‘loyal’ to whoever gives them their pay for what they do?

And incidentally it seems the antifas found it hard to spell ‘traitor’, and some of their handmade signs read ‘traiter’ or ‘traiterist’, (I think they meant to write ‘traitorous’, the adjective, but oh well. Schools don’t teach spelling, grammar, or any such old-fashioned subjects.)

Apparently no one was seriously hurt during the scuffle, as the police dispersed the crowd of 200 or so people.

I am heartened somewhat to see that the people in Weatherford still have some spirit, to exercise their right to object to the removal of the monument — and to stand up to the antifas who crashed the party.

Another day, another accusation

So now someone wants to change the name of the Texas Rangers. That is the baseball team. This time the accuser is one Karen (!) Attiah, who is employed by the Washington Post, a paper not known for impartiality.

And Ms Attiah is not really accusing anyone (of what else? Racism, of course); shes just making a bald assertion that the Texas Rangers of legend were guilty. After all, nowadays the accusation is all that’s needed to convict someone. So Ms Attiah, who is from Africa, apparently found some information (sources?) that made the Rangers out to be “cruel” and “racist”, “oppressing black people”. And did she look at other sources which might provide another side to the story? She found what she wanted and probably stopped looking.

It strains credulity to think that MsAttiah and her family never suspected that White people might not have had modern-day Politically Correct attitudes back in the era after the War for Southern Independence. I doubt she was that ingenuous that she never heard of the Rangers having to subdue the very warlike Comanches. That was why and how the White settlers came to Texas. There was a lot of bloodshed. Had the Rangers and the Texas colonists had submissive attitudes like today’s, there would now be no Texas; it would be still a part of Mexico. But then most immigrants don’t learn history. They learn only about how ‘racist’ America is, and how easily most of us ‘take a knee’ when accused or intimidated.

The idea that Texans, after the War, mistreated nonwhites with impunity is just false. Texans, that is, White Texans, were under Occupation during the Reconstruction era, about which I’ve written now and then. Texans, White Texans, were not ‘free’ people really, during that era. Few Americans know anything about that time and the Reconstruction regime. So I don’t expect non-Americans or paper Americans to know about it, though they should.

Just for disclosure’s sake, I am not impartial here either; one of my great-grandfathers was a Ranger in the days of Sul Ross, a name recognizable to most Texans. Sad to say, Sul Ross, a great man, has also been ‘controversial’, being attacked for not having the present-day attitudes demanded of us all.

Incidentally, the black slaves in Texas were mostly concentrated in East Texas. They were not exactly omnipresent in the state. I don’t think my great-grandad had much contact with black slaves nor did many Rangers.

How many more of these scripted denunciations and accusations are there to come? Infinite? It just goes on and on, and the ‘R-word’ is the most overused, worn-out word in the English language. And to think, the word wasn’t widely known until post-WWII, though it was supposedly made up by leftists in the 1930s.

But that word may ultimately bring the demise of our civilization, by death of a thousand cuts, since we seem to be rendered powerless when someone wields that word. It’s the magic weapon; it seems to hit home every time. Guilty.

“And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight:…”

King James Bible, Leviticus, 26:8

Now, it seems to be the reverse; one person, armed with ‘that word’ and that accusation, can put a hundred — or ten thousand — of us to flight. So another name will be made taboo on the strength of one person’s complaint. Again our folk are adjudged guilty. Is there no breaking the pattern?

O’Rourke on the 2nd Amendment

Robert “Beto” O’Rourke is now openly speaking against Second Amendment rights of citizens. I suspect he hasn’t had a change of heart, but has always held these views; the left has seldom upheld the ideas inherent in the Second Amendment. He basically says that it’s useless, and implicitly wrong, even theoretically, to consider opposing a tyrannical regime; after all, you have no chance of prevailing, even though you may be in the right, so don’t even think of defending yourself, your family, or your rights.

(By the way, O’Rourke’s name is Robert, so why again do we call him ‘Beto’? Is this not what the ”woke” left call ‘cultural appropriation’? His name is Robert, so why is he not called Bob, or in more appropriate Texas fashion, ‘Bobby’? Is he not a born Texan? He has no discernible Texan or Southern accent, but then that’s typical of his generation (since judging people by generation is somehow the ”done thing”, then let’s label him too; he’s a Gen X-er). And he is also one of those deracinated, cosmopolitan types, hence the affected ‘Beto’ nickname; I guess that explains it. He wants to show he is ‘down’ with the diversity thing; no ‘White-bread’ Texan or Southron, he.

In times past, someone like him would never have been elected; the Democrat Party. which dominated all of the South until what, the 1980s, would never have nominated him. Even the Democrat Party did not present such far-left candidates back in the time of the Solid South.

But the way in which he brushes aside any consideration of the Second Amendment, which the Founding Fathers thought crucial to preserving the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is just astounding, but then it’s typical of today’s left, who no longer pretend to honor our Founding principles.

Yes, I know it’s the thing now for even the right to deride the Founding Fathers, flippantly declaring that they didn’t know what they were doing, and that ‘muh Constitution’ is worthless, echoing G.W. Bush who reportedly said ‘it’s just a G–D—-d piece of paper‘ — but with what would you replace it? Of course no rights exist if we no longer believe in them, and dismiss the writers of our Constitution as clueless blunderers who should have somehow magically divined the ways in which future politicians would deliberately twist and warp the words and intentions of the Founders, or just blatantly ignore or defy the rights delineated in our founding documents. How could they have anticipated the developments which led to our present dire predicament? Could they have anticipated a world in which literally millions of people from the ‘have-not’ countries could somehow find the means (cheap air travel, money given by NGOs, etc.) to come en masse to our country?

And critics usually forget that our system of government was explicitly intended for a ”moral and God-fearing people’, and it was not suited to any other. Little wonder that it’s fallen to pieces; the more we forsook our traditions and became disconnected from our roots, including our religious roots, the more this country fell prey to subversion and decay. We can’t blame the Founding Fathers, who could hardly envision today’s world, nor can even the Boomers be blamed — sorry, Boomer-phobics. I won’t even blame Gen-Xers, except for the likes of ”Beto” Robert O’Rourke, though I will fault him for either his ignorance of or disregard for our inherent right to defend ourselves. It appears he thinks we should just cower in our houses if bad guys are breaking in, and give in to their demands.

Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms.” – Aristotle

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone’s Commentaries)

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” — Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789

…to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” – George Mason